The role of the military and its relation to alleviating humanitarian crises?!

[Future Prodigy]

I notice from your postings that you do want to debate with conservative realists and that you will not debate your close-mindedness.  This makes it tough to have a dialogue.  You are not on a pulpit and we are not in the pews.  If you are going to make pronouncements and do not want to listen then you may find yourself a little isolated unless the Communist Party needs another AGITPROP specialist.

I did not mean to come across that way. It seemed that some of the posts here were almost geared personally at me, maybe that is because of the medium we are using for discussion, and i became very defensive. Some of the comments were just as close minded as my own, although that is no excuse, and i fired back with similar lines of reasoning. I am always open for legitimate debate though, for this is the only true route of learning - that is the reason why i came here after all, not to troll (whatever that may mean).

 

[Yrys]

p.s. What is a troll?! That makes no sense, i come here with honest questions and I'm compared to a mythical character who lives under bridges and kidnaps children!? You guys got some weird sense of humor.

A quick search here or elsewhere would have answer that...

Troll (disambiguation)

They're not refering to troll , but to troll

 

[Future Prodigy]

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion"

THat is definitely not my intention, if I have come across that way i do apologize. Like i said earlier this entire debate was sparked from Mr. Dallaires talk he gave at my school a couple weeks ago, and the accompanying 1on1 talk in the parking lot. Since that presentation I have been in constant contact with recruiting centers and other reserve units trying to get answers, and then i came across this site... so , i asked my questions here. I am not trolling.

I have been heavily influenced by chomsky, and some of peter singer's one world theories, and this is why i was asking these sorts of questions. I do not just want to jump into the water, to learn to swim, if i don't think swimming is a skill i will want to use.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I have been heavily influenced by chomsky, and some of peter singer's one world theories, and this is why i was asking these sorts of questions. I do not just want to jump into the water, to learn to swim, if i don't think swimming is a skill i will want to use.

If you've been heavily influenced by Chomksy we will often find ourselves at odds.  I suffered through Chomsky at school.  I haven't studied Singer, but a quick look at his body of works tells me that we would not find much common ground there either.  Still, I enjoy these kinds of discussions and I respect critics of a society.

For myself I tend to agree with Hobbes.  I see the world as a rather mean place.  I see no underlying consensus for a world government and the nation-state remains the key unit.  Nation-states may get smaller, but I don't see them disappearing.  I still believe in the sovereignty of nation-states, and I will protect mine first and foremost as is my sworn duty.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Awww, i love the irony here. Someone above mentions we are a Christian society, ethical - the good Samaritans - and then i read this lol. Oh how greed makes even the best meaning people into cold hearted creatures.

FYI, it isn't greed that makes me cold hearted.  It's experience and realism. 
And as a realist I know there is no way in hell Canadians would support a roll back in their standard of living in order to make someone in another countries life easier.  I had to work my ass off my whole life to get to where I am (which is modest, but comfortable) and if making some third worlds persons life better means my family has to do without something, well...sucks to be in the third world I guess. 
However, your proletariat dreams may yet come true.  Look at how much radical Islam has done to redistribute Western wealth to impoverished nations in order to stem terrorism. 
Bin Laden did more for communist values that Marx ever did. 

 

[Blindspot]

I have been heavily influenced by chomsky...

Oh hell, I was going to call you on this one after page 1. The "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" philosophy of internationalism (selective of course) is always used in arguments for why we shouldn't be in Afghanistan (at least those that I've been engaged in). Chomsky is certainly handed out like Credit Cards at University.

Hmm... I propose Chomsky Bingo.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

OK folks, a few previous posts in this thread have come too close to personal attacks as outlined in the forum conduct guidelines.

zipperhead_cop, 2 Cdo and TCBF, I respect your opinions, but no need for you to go where you've been going with some of your latest comments. 

I'm going to lock this thread up until Saturday 22 March for a cooling off period and clean up the posts.  The way it's going, nothing good will come of it as it spirals downward.   

Happy Easter.

The Army.ca Staff

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

Cleaned up and unlocked.

If some of you can't find posts you made in this one previously, it's because I did a pruning and removed old posts that detracted from the debate, such as the "drinking tea with the elders" sidebar.  PM me if you can't live without them...

The Army.ca Staff

 

[zipperhead_cop]

All good

 

[McG]

mcg - I don't quite follow why you suggested those readings? I'm not against just wars fought for the betterment of universal humanity ...

My intent was to illustrate, as per your question, that quite often (and on increasing frequency) the Army's role in alleviation of humanitarian crisis of an international nature, is the application of combat power in order to halt atrocities & provide a security for the execution of relief or reconstruction efforts.  Where other agencies are unwilling or unable, the Army can also go farther by physically conducting tasks of delivering goods, fixing/building infrastructure, providing temp health services.  In the case of natural disasters, these services are often best under taken by the military (which has the logistical & operational capacity to do this on a large scale quickly).  However, in the aftermath of war this is best done through local agencies where possible (along the teach a man to fish analogy).

As was already discussed, the government decides where & when it will employ its military resources.  Once the government takes a decision, the military gets the job done.  Within the military, there is extensive ethical training that ensures soldiers are executing tasks in a manner that is acceptable to the ethical standards of Canadian society (in addition to the standards on international laws of armed conflict).

 

[Future Prodigy]

My intent was to illustrate, as per your question, that quite often (and on increasing frequency) the Army's role in alleviation of humanitarian crisis of an international nature, is the application of combat power in order to halt atrocities & provide a security for the execution of relief or reconstruction efforts.  Where other agencies are unwilling or unable, the Army can also go farther by physically conducting tasks of delivering goods, fixing/building infrastructure, providing temp health services.  In the case of natural disasters, these services are often best under taken by the military (which has the logistical & operational capacity to do this on a large scale quickly).  However, in the aftermath of war this is best done through local agencies where possible (along the teach a man to fish analogy).

Why is it that this sort of reasoning seems to be the minority? This i support wholeheartedly, but can not accept the above premises - the ones before it. How much does this sort of ideology influence current military affairs?

Ironically, even though i have been heavily influenced by the left wing academia, i do not agree with their passive stance on systemic change, etc. I believe in a more 'abrupt' change. I see the military having an important role in this for the future, but it must not serve just its own Canadian national agenda... the plights of humanity must be met.

I guess i can always hope for the future, maybe the status quo will demand change and force politicians to make policy changes  ;D

 

[aesop081]

I see the military having an important role in this for the future, but it must not serve just its own national agenda... the plights of humanity must be met.

The military does not serve its OWN national agenda. The military serves the government's national agenda and thus serves Canadian's national agenda. We d not decide what missions we take on and what roles we play.

Where the heck did you get that idea in your head ?

 

[George Wallace]

... the plights of humanity must be met.

Obviously you are mistaking the military for OXFAM, UNICEF, Doctors Sans Frontiers, CIDA, The Red Cross/Crescent, Habitate for Humanity, or some other humanitarian organization.

 

[Future Prodigy]

Obviously you are mistaking the military for OXFAM, UNICEF, Doctors Sans Frontiers, CIDA, The Red Cross/Crescent, Habitate for Humanity, or some other humanitarian organization.

Obviously you are a selective reader. I clearly said in my post above the OXFAM, NGO's, CIDA - and the like - do not go far enough. In order to effect change a drastic force is needed to instigate such a action. Which is where i believe the military comes in. For example, i support military presence in Darfur and Congo (not ngos and CIDA), but it seems under the current self-interested set up it will never happen.

This nit picking of my posts is really starting to bug me. Why do people post responses about point B in a post, when clearly the question at hand is point A!?

 

[Future Prodigy]

My intent was to illustrate, as per your question, that quite often (and on increasing frequency) the Army's role in alleviation of humanitarian crisis of an international nature, is the application of combat power in order to halt atrocities & provide a security for the execution of relief or reconstruction efforts.  Where other agencies are unwilling or unable, the Army can also go farther by physically conducting tasks of delivering goods, fixing/building infrastructure, providing temp health services.  In the case of natural disasters, these services are often best under taken by the military (which has the logistical & operational capacity to do this on a large scale quickly).  However, in the aftermath of war this is best done through local agencies where possible (along the teach a man to fish analogy).

Why is it that this sort of reasoning seems to be the minority? This i support wholeheartedly, but can not accept the above premises - the ones before it. How much does this sort of ideology influence current military affairs?

Ironically, even though i have been heavily influenced by the left wing academia, i do not agree with their passive stance on systemic change, etc. I believe in a more 'abrupt' change. I see the military having an important role in this for the future, but it must not serve just its own national agenda... the plights of humanity must be met.

I guess i can always hope for the future, maybe the status quo will demand change and force politicians to make policy changes  ;D

So, to reiterate [because my last post caused a new page number and i fear that point A, will not be answered unless i repost this]

 

[Future Prodigy]

Thank the Good Lord for someone who has engaged my QUESTION. "Military forces should be used to stabilize situations in a security sense and set the conditions for others to undertake humanitarian support operations." See this is what i have been trying to say as well. I believe this is how our forces should be used, but from the above stated mission/ethos it is not necessarily the case. It is only when our national needs are met, will we engage in such a scenario.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye (Matthew 7:5)!!! You chastise me but say nothing to your brothers in arms... convenient!

OK Prodigy, this little remark will earn you an introduction to the warning system.  I've answered your questions, IHS gave you a bit of a hint from a peer member standpoint, but in continuing on this argumentative path, you've left me no choice.  I've locked the thread once, cleaned it, passed advice as applicable.  Some was taken into account, some was not.

The Army.ca Staff

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

Prodigy,

My replies to you do not put you "in the right".

You will recall that I have followed this thread from its beginning - I did lock and clean it in and around Page 5 - only 2 days ago - with a warning to all involved, including you to keep things civil.

I have gone over the thread.  Objectively.  And, as you will know from reading the moderator guidelines and the warning system guidelines that the moderators do consult with other moderators not involved in a thread discussion before taking any action.  It's also a bit of finger work to warn people, so we'd rather not have to do it.  

You are a smart guy.  You have potential.  But you also have the proclivity to lash out and make inappropriate posts in this and other threads (which I've also gone through).  Enough tarring with the brush of "others are deralining this thread" - you've done a bit of that yourself, after being warned off.

I suggest you take a break tonight from this thread.  Any more posts along the same line as your "ironic/funny" post above and I will lock the thread and may escalate you up the warning system.  Others involved, time to back down - no need for dogpile.

Fair warning given.  

The Army.ca Staff

 

[a_majoor]

Thank the Good Lord for someone who has engaged my QUESTION. "Military forces should be used to stabilize situations in a security sense and set the conditions for others to undertake humanitarian support operations." See this is what i have been trying to say as well. I believe this is how our forces should be used, but from the above stated mission/ethos it is not necessarily the case. It is only when our national needs are met, will we engage in such a scenario.

So you evidently understand what we are saying at some level (i.e. we engage to meet Canada's needs), but you simply will not accept that this should be the case. This is a bit like discussions about economics where one or more parties insists that people produce, buy or sell things for altruistic reasons rather than for their own self betterment. To attribute the results of the market to altruism or government regulation rather than accept the "Invisible Hand" is the result of individual self interest is to ignore history, econometrics and human nature. 

Similarly, to suggest that national interest does not or should not drive the use of State resources (of which we are one) is to ignore the true state of international relations. "International Law" and the United Nations are convenient fig leafs for actions, but the cold and terrible reality is sovereign nations exist in a state of nature and will take actions to support their perceived national interests. China's activities in the Sudan, Tibet and surrounding the 2008 Summer Olympics are perfect examples; should the UN agree with what they do, so much the better, but should the UN disagree; well Turtle Bay can go pound salt, China will do what China needs to do. Canada does not and cannot act differently or we will cease to exist as a State.

So I say again; the actions we take are first and always in support of Canada and our national interests. We undertake humanitarian tasks to support the broader mission, and know that the overarching goals of Canada (peace and security for Canadians) also translates to peace and security for others as a pleasant side effect.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Jason I'm one of the first members here to say 'hey relax on the new guys'. I've posted my share of threads in the admin section talking about fairness between members and staff.
I also often PM guys who took a verbal beating and say hey relax, don't take it to heart etc..

You're coming across as a know it all university punk. One need not even read your user name to get the feeling that YOU believe you have all the answers.  Arguing and debating with fellow students in class is quite different than arguing and debating with people whom not only have real world experience but are also by nature of their job quite experienced in the field your arguing about.
You're on a military message forum talking to people who have served overseas *IN* humanitarian roles.  How many humanitarian missions have you been involved in?

If you feel that people are jumping down your throat and not giving you room to breathe it's because they've seen and dealt with posters who behaved in the exact same way as you. More often than not the end result is the same too.  If you're stressed out and upset over the topic why don't you just take a break for a week?  Not posting your .02 cents isn't going to be the end of the world.

Give it a break.